well in that context they were conquerors

Colonizers rather than conquerors. Colonizers are effectively migrants, by the very definition of the word.

The British India Company colonisation of India was institutional colonisation.

The company remained for many generations but most (not all) individual British people stationed themselves in India and retired 'home' to England where to whence the money flowed.

Many European countries regarded their "colonies" as places to exploit for resources, places to be travelled to for work for many years, places they didn't regard as 'home'.

There's more to "colonisation" than just simple migration.

Even in Australia the early colonisation was by settler families that were part of larger stay at home families, the black sheep, wayward sons, and fortune seeking adventurers .. in Australia convicts and servant families remained, ultimately a good proportion of the underwritten (from home) settlers stayed .. but initially at least many heads of these families "returned home" to England.

In a similar manner modern USofA has many institutional "colonies" around the globe, bases they've established and never left, these rarely have permanently settled multi generational families.

and those countries that were colonized by Western Civilization countries are very lucky.

they are typically the top performing GDP countries of their region with some of the best quality of life for their citizens

Oh yes. Get the list of countries colonized by the awesome Western Civilization. You will be surprised to learn the world is a lot larger than US and Canada.

Just look at African or South American countries by GDP and see which ones are at the top of the list

You are aware that all South and Central American countries were colonized by Western Powers right?

Obviously he has no clue, and thinks all the (largely southern-)European-looking Spanish and Portuguese-speaking people there somehow descended from Aztecs and Incas.